So the headline should be "Whites who shoot blacks in self-defense are overwhelmingly more likely to be brought to trial than any other black/what composition."

Now go back and include the cases that don't result in a finding, and report on how many justifiable shootings simply don't enter the judiciary realm at all. That's the more important piece of data.

Two points - (1) An appeal to probability is a formal logical fallacy &says nothing about the personal guilt of Zimmerman except to show that he was more likely than not to prevail. (2) This is not a stand your ground case. Zimmerman & his defense formally declined the Stand Your Ground defense prior to the trial see - http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense

probably because blacks attacking whites are more common than whites attacking blacks. Actually... yeah, thats true.

Thanks fbi crime statistics.

I'd like to see this chart with the "Whites on Blacks" split into "Hispanic on Black" and "Non-Hispanic on Black" and see what _those_ results are. Remember Zimmerman was Hispanic, not Caucasian.

Stand your ground may or may not be a good law in theory but, in practice, it increases racial bias in legal outcomes.

Merely showing that the law increases racial bias says nothing about whether or not it is a good law. Is the problem with this bias that too many white people are getting way with murder, or that too many black people are being convicted for justified self defense? If the latter, then we need broader, more consistent application of the SYG principle. If the former, then getting rid of SYG entirely might be the better solution.

Even when analyzing the bias on its own, we have to ask, is this biased in the sense that the original Grandfather clause was biased, or is it biased only in the sense that the law against murder itself is biased, which is to say, because it is applied within a racially biased society?

FYI, you contradict yourself. In one paragraph..."stand your ground increases the likelihood of conviction, but only when a white person is accused of killing a black person." In another paragraph, "stand your ground laws increase the chances that a homicide will be considered justifiable." So which is it: Does SYG increase the likelihood of conviction or does it increase the likelihood of it being considered justified? (I understand the chart and I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not written clearly.)

If this was the 60's...right now, half the world would be on fire.

Others have said it already but it bears repeating. This was not a "Stand Your Ground" case.

Zimmerman was cooperating with police who were trying to build a manslaughter case against him. The prosecution probably could have gotten conviction under that charge. But when certain people started demanding that he be arrested immediately and charged with murder 2, it ruined the entire case. If you wanted justice for Trayvon, you should have just keep your mouth shut and let the police do their work.

This is why America is the greatest nation in the world. Freedom of speech and freedom to protect yourself. .Lets face it no matter who you are RACE will always be a part of life so this case is no different. Race played a big part in the last election. Obama is black no he was born in Hawaii no he is past asian. What diference does it make, he is a man and I need him to run the country I live in. If he was white and couldn't run this country I wouldn't vote him back in. Wake up America judge a man on his actions not on his words. For those who define Zimmerman as white not hispanic and Martin as black not white are just as racist . Look in the mirror we are all part of the problem. If you do not like something then be the change and get more involved in govt. or creating better laws. We all have to take responsibility for our actions, they both could have done something different in this case !! Thank God for my freedoms and have a blessed day !!

I'm really confused about the graph. What is the scale? It must be some measure of "likelihood" of conviction, I suppose, but... 350 what? I'd like to show this data to my (crim) students, but it's inscrutable here. Additionally, I know the author is looking for brevity here, but some inkling of methodology would be very much appreciated.

This data is skewed by percentages. The incidence rate is important data that builds context. How many white-on-white incidences were there? White-on-black? And what were the circumstances? Does the SYG law fail to protect you if you used an unregistered or stolen firearm? There are a lot of factors to consider.

wait a second...you have a PhD?!?! in Sociology. HAHAHAHAHA what a joke. please don't post any more of these misleading infographics on your blahg; people mistake this for actual research and then spread it around the internet like it's factual.

What about white on white?

or Hispanic on Asian?

uhm, First, Zimmerman wasn't white, and, my understanding, he was actually partially black. Another thing you need to factor in is most of the violent crimes are committed by blacks. Sorry, there's more to it that that. You've got 5,000 cases of a black guy robbing a white guy, 1,000 where the white kills the black, 900 found justifiable. 1,000 blacks rob blacks, 300 kill the other (blacks are more violent towards whites than blacks, so it's often less likely the need to kill the aggressor). 200 found justifiable. so, 900/1000=90%justifiable. 200/300=66% justifiable.

It's not racial profiling to suspect a black person of being a criminal. it's generalizing. we generalize and stereotype for a reason. 90%+ of crime is committed by non-white, with the greatest portion being black. I'm sorry, if you don't like this fact, stop blaming the whites, and teach the blacks right from wrong.

blacks people are not bad, and it's probable that there are more good blacks than bad blacks. but, if one black robs 300 people/places, well, that's 300 black on white crimes, and if 10 whites each rob 20 people, well, who still looks worse? 300 black crimes, or 200 white crimes.... in that instance, black people would be better, but still perceived as worse. and that's typically the way it is. the few bad blacks are very bad. straighten them out, and the problem is fixed!

What does the blue "All" bar represent? If it represents all states (SYG and non SYG) then how could there be a smaller percentage of white on black justifiable homicides in all states than there are in syg AND non syg states? In other words, shouldn't the height of the blue lines always fall between the height of the red and purple lines?

the graph is almost incomprehensible. I fancy myself a graphic-literate person but can't make heads or tails from this except one bar is bigger than the other. blacks are -15% more likely to be found justifiable killing other blacks and whites are 250% more likely to be found justifiable killing blacks compared to white on white violence? can we get the raw numbers because it's very hard to try and make sense of what is going on in that graph and I've seen it spread around with people posting it and not really understanding it

The graph is not incomprehensible, just poorly described (A likelihood is another word for probability which has a range of [0,1]. The vertical axis is the percentage difference in probability of non-conviction versus the base group (white on white homicide). Let P0 be the probability of non-conviction for white on white. Let P1 be the probability of non-conviction for white on black. Then, the third set of bars are given by 100*(P1-P0)/P0.

Unfortunately the author does not report the P0 figure, which could be small. Any change can be a "big" change relative to a small baseline and it's quite misleading to report percent differences without providing the baseline value. So, the author has provided absolutely no context that would allow one to judge the real magnitude of "350%"

There are also a number of problems with making definitive statements based on partial correlations, including the fact that correlation is not causation, endogeneity of state-specific laws, lack of important information about the context of crimes by racial categorization, etc. It's not clear whether and to what extent any of these factors are addressed in the original study.

Also, confidence intervals, taught in any introduction to statistics course, are always helpful.

Did someone collect these data without controlling for previous record? relationship between the defendant and the victim? or anything else? This seems like classic ice creams sales and murder rate.

Can you explain the axis on the graph? i.e. I think I am reading that in a SYG state, there is a >350% chance that if a white person kills a black person, the murder will be deemed justified. If that is the case, then doesn't this mean more than all murders like this are deemed justified?

Also, how does the data reflect cases dealing with people of multi-racial backgrounds?

This analysis assumes no systemic difference between black-on-white shootings and white-on-black shootings. There may be a reason for the bias that correlated with race but is not causal, i.e., black individuals are more likely to perpetrate crimes that are objectively more violent/dangerous than the other way around. Given the make up of our prison system, this point bears consideration.

I'm not necessarily saying that it's true, I'm just saying that automatically assuming it's not true is bad analysis and bad statistics. The fact that we'd rather it not be true for the sake of race relations is really not a good enough reason to discard the possibility.

That's a correlation study, not a causation one. To show causation you'd want to collect data from the states being studied both before and after SYG laws were created, to show that the spike occurred after the laws came into effect. Even then that would be a strong correlation but causation's a nasty beast to pin down.

The meme "unarmed ...child who committed no crime" was totally vitiated at trial with the presentation of eye-witness testimony, forensics, and photos. Trayvon Martin, old enough to join the military at 6'1" tall with sneaks and a hoodie on, armed himself with a concrete slab and committed the 1st and ONLY crime of the evening when he assault and battered George Zimmerman and REFUSED to STOP when George Zimmerman repeatedly yelled "HELP," and when John Good came out of his home to yelled "STOP, I'm calling 911." Facts Matter and only those either too ignorant to know them or too in denial to claim them repeat this false meme.

George Zimmerman is as much a White Hispanic as Barack Hussein Obama is a Black Caucasian (first daddy, then mommy).

Bad data: In SYG states, the white-on-black acquittal rate is 3.6 times the white-on-white acquittal rate; in other states, it is 2.5 times. In all states combined, it is 2.4 times.

If you don't know what state you are in, you should conclude that white-on-black accused shooters will be acquitted 2.4 times as often as white-on-white shooters. If you learn whether or not the state you are in has a SYG law, that number only increases.

A cross tab is strong evidence? Glad for the sound causal inference....

Its a shame you are an educator. You obviously wanted to support your predetermined perception rather than facts. Using the latest crime statistics from the FBI, which is 2011, you would see that statistically the aggressor in violent crime is African American. Roughly 50% of violent crime is committed by Black Males which account for less than 10% of the population. ( I can hear liberals screaming racism for stating a fact ). The numbers speak for themselves. Also a white person is more likely to have carry permit.

The only thing your data proves is that in non SYG states people are twice as likely to be convicted for defending themselves regardless of race.

I guess I should not have expected too much from a PHD who incorrectly posted that this was even a Stand Your Ground case. Don't let your emotions over rule logic.

I am saddened that you sheeple have let such a tragedy define race relations. From the beginning the media intentionally twisted this tragedy to stoke the deepest darkest fears people have. Race is still a problem in this country. It is something we must deal with. But quit picking cases to stoke the national debate from twisted half truths the media spoon feeds you.

Love to all, RIP Trayvon and may peace be with your family as soon as the media whores leave you alone and quit stoking the flames of paranoia and vestiges of racism for their ratings.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

SYG is irrelevant when a person is on top of you punching you and pounding your head on a concrete sidewalk. So is the race of the person doing it. GZ was returning to his vehicle when TM attacked him from behind. What was in TM's mind when he chose to do that we'll never know for sure, but it was HIS actions that led to his death.

What is the effect size?

Just with a back of the envelope calculation: White on black homicides only represent about 3-4% of all homicides, so out of the 4650 homicides examined, we're looking about 160 homicides:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7168

The article says that 7.2% to 13.6% of all homicides were ruled justifiable (depending on the state you were in) - we'll split the difference, and just say 10% of all homicides were justifiable. That's the overall rate we're comparing to. So, out of the 160 white on black homicides, we're expecting 16 of them to be justifiable. This chart tells us that the rate is actually 225% higher, so actually 36 homicides were ruled justifiable.

The conclusion is that out of 4650 homicides, we have roughly 20 more
justifiable homicides where white guys kill black guys and aren't convicted. This is a swing of about 0.5% of the overall rate - hardly evidence of systematic bias, and much less impressive than the chart shown.

The reason that the authors do not give numbers, but rather pretty incomprehensibly presented percentages, is that the number of white-killing-black killings is so small. (In known cases of murder-victim, the great majority of murders are intraracial; in the low number of interracial cases, blacks kill more than twice as many whites as whites kill blacks. Year 2011 data, e.g., are available at: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.)

Between 2005 and 2009, there were 1148 justifiable homicides in the US (about 1.5% of all homicides in those five years). And then the number of cases in which a Stand Your Ground law was invoked is smaller still. We're talking in at most low double digits, possibly single digits.

In other words, these data are being stated in percentages in order to conceal the fact that there is no significant difference because the data are insufficient to justify any inference, and that the authors are making an accusation of racism where the data don't support that accusation. In addition, their claim about what the data illustrate is itself an invalid inference, even if they were dealing with data in the hundreds.

How many incidents of white on black killing are there in a given year? Does this graph include police shootings?

so what's wrong with this? why assume that the likelihood of self defense in killings has to be the same in all permuations of races? why assume that there's something wrong with the law or something?

I want the raw data because this graph reeks of bull. Who taught you to reorient a bar graph to make it relative to one of the datasets? That completely obfuscates the error bars and can imply misleading results.
Not to mention that putting things on a relative scale distorts the difference between reduction and increase because there's a finite bound on reduction (-100%) but no upper bound, basically exaggerating small differences in the dataset you want exaggerated.

Possible consideration: when you look at the states that tend to have strong self defense laws, they tend to be in the South, and they tend to be more conservative. I think that both of these things would tend to tilt things against black defendants in aggregate.

I think a more useful comparison would be the conviction rate of black vs. white defendants before and after the passage of stand your ground laws. Most of these laws were passed in the last 20-30 years, so the data should be comparable.

WE ARE NOT ALL TRAYVON and here's why:

NOT all of us have been found in possession of stolen women's jewelry, not all of us ingest THC, not all of us graffiti private property, not all of us regularly fight, not all of us store and view pornographic photos of underage girls, and not all of us seek to acquire a firearm illegally.

Not all of us have assault and battered someone and not all of us have refused to STOP battering our victim when s/he yelled for "HELP" or a bystander comes by and yells "STOP, I'm calling 911."

Many of us have bought Skittles and Watermelon Juice (or similar candy and juice) and ran home without doing any of the above to watch the NBA All Star Game with D-Wade, Lebron, Kobe, Mello, et al!

Here's what Eric "Too Fast & Furious" Holder's DOJ SHOULD BE concerning itself with:

In 513 Days Between Trayvon Dying and the Zimmerman Trial Verdict, 11,106 Blacks Have Been Murdered by OTHER BLACKS

http://www.soopermexican.com/2013/07/14/in-513-days-between-trayvon-dying-and-the-zimmerman-trial-verdict-11106-blacks-have-been-murdered-by-other-blacks/

I really wish we'd adopt the British terminology when it comes to responding with a verdict. Rather than stating its view of the defendant's guilt ("guilty" or "not guilty"), it refers to the substance of the prosecution's argument, stating whether the charges are "proven" or "not proven." Such a verdict properly reflects the reality of what's supposed to be a case--the defendant is presumed innocent, and the burden of proof is not upon the defendant to prove he is innocent, but upon the State to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fact remains here that, whether or not the situation happened as suggested by the State, the State simply did not prove their theory sufficiently enough to remove any doubt from the jury's minds that their view of what happened was the right one. Even the black woman on the jury wasn't convinced.

Are people just stupid or ignorant? White people had nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin case. The shooter was hispanic. For the love of FUCK

.....and this should surprise no one that isn't an ignorant fuck.

Zimmerman is not white; He is Mexican.

The graph and description are deceiving, but I would like to reserve judgment until it's better explained. "Likelihood" infers either a causal relationship or a predictive relationship (though these types of relationships do not seem exclusive). A regression model could possibly give us a better idea, no? The race of the accused and accuser then PREDICT or EXPLAIN HOW MUCH of the variance? Are the data included in the graph overall numbers or likelihood, as in percentage? I assume the author, with a PhD in sociology, is well versed in quantitative methodology and statistics, but using numercy to make a point is not good for science, or your point (which I wholeheartedly agree with, btw).

As far as I understand, the jury was instructed to analyze the case using SYG language, despite the fact that SYG was not invoked by the defense (it was not invoked by them since apparently invoking it would have allowed the opposing side to review their case). But things are structured such that the jury ends up thinking of the case in terms of SYG concepts regardless. My source for this was a legal expert on Chicago public radio this morning.

This is written in response to the correction at the bottom of the post

To the author...You are an idiot. If white people attacking black people was just as rampant as black on others, there would be an equal white conviction rate. Please use common sense and look at the world unfortunately as it is instead of how you think it should be.

So let me get this straight.

The STG law allows law abiding citizens more protection to protect themselves.

The law abiding citizens are now more likely to protect themselves.

As a result, more bad guys get killed and fewer law abiding citizens get killed.

Sounds like natural progression

"Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in
he number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between
28 and 33 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no consistent
evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks. "
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18187

I'm annoyed by this graph. What are the raw percentages--justifiable white-on-black versus justifiable black-on-white?

I may have missed it, but have to see the number of cases to see if any of this is statistically significant... I cannot imagine THAT many cases have appealed to Stand Your Ground (as the Zimmerman case ended up NOT doing... this case would be the same in any US state, they did not use that argument, they suggested that Zimmerman was attacked and feared for his life with no ability to escape, and responded with deadly force... legal in any state as far as I know)

One wonders if these figures show much if anything about the effect of SYG laws on findings of justifiable homicide. As an earlier comment pointed out, the number of white on black and black on white killings is small, so one wonders about statistical significance of the results. There is also the question of other factors which might be at play. For example, juries in states which have SYG laws may be more inclined to approve of gun use and self defense rationales. One could also argue, hopefully without being accused of racism, that the statistical profile of crimes committed by black persons could be different from that of white persons, as a result of the well-known economic and social deprivation suffered by african-American populations, which could affect the credibility of a self defense argument. Finally, there is the question of the quality of legal defense. Whatever you might think of Zimmerman's culpability, he had a first-class defense. Not many lower income African-Americans get that advantage.

How come is the white-on-black ALL effect smaller than both non-SYG and SYG white-on-black effects? Is ALL be some sort of average of the two categories, ie some "overall effect"?

Black people murder whites at a higher rate than whites murder blacks. Somewhere roughly around 3-5 times as often.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Given
that, it would stand to reason that whites would shoot blacks in
self-defense more often than vice-versa. This would explain the
apparent discrepancy shown by the graphic, without there being any
racism involved on the part of law enforcement or juries.

If we want to correct this problem, the most effective way to do it would be to reduce violence among young black males.

More: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/07/cops-shooting-unarmed-black-men.html

This graph does not provide factual evidence behind the outlandish statement it attempts to project on the viewer. In fact, by doing simple research for a few minutes you'll find that the statements made in this article are absolutely misconstrued and false. What's wrong with this country is that we have idiots writing articles like this, and bigger idiots reading them and accepting the information provided without taking the time to investigate the statements themselves.

The figure is wrong. The blue bar, which combines SYG with non-SYG MUST ALWAYS BE INTERMEDIATE IN SIZE between the other two, because it is a weighted average of the other two. It cannot be the biggest or smallest bar, period.

I guess there are no Asians that get murdered or commit murder in those states. Clearly, since you left out Asians, you are a racist. Why didn't you break it down to who had a public defender and who paid for their lawyer? that is just one of many other factors that could cause a abnormality in the numbers that could make it seem like race. If you are going to say it is race YOU HAVE TO RULE OUT EVERYTHING ELSE AND YOU RULED OUT NOTHING ELSE. Also sample rate. I would think blacks killing blacks and whites killing whites FAR OUT NUMBER blacks and whites killing each other. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T POST THE RAW NUMBERS FOR YOUR "GRAPH" OR A LINK TO THE RAW NUMBERS. since there could be major difference in the sample, that could lead to an abnormality in the data. however, maybe there is racist things going on. For example, maybe more innocent white people have to go to trial because the courts are scared that people will think they are racist. Remember a man was fired because he didn't bring charges up on Zimmerman even though there was no case on Zimmerman. I have poor writing ability and no PHD but you do and someone WITH a phd should never publish something like this "A finding of “justifiable homicide” is much more common in the case of a white-on-black killing than any other kind including a white and a black person." WHAT?

I feel compelled to preface my remarks with the following: In this case, the obvious solution is also the correct one. As a preliminary, I want to call for a return to the values that made this country great. If Fate desired that poor graph design make a correct application of what it had read about sensationalism it would have to indicate title and page number since the pompous, verbally incontinent varmint would otherwise never in all its existence find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, poor graph design thinks there should be a law prohibiting people from saying any harsh or unkind things against it. Am I aware of how poor graph design will react when it reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because if you've read this far then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me.
As far back as I can remember, poor graph design has pitted voluptuaries against jerks and sandbaggers against twaddlers. For all intents and purposes, if poor graph design makes fun of me or insults me I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to oppose poor graph design and all it stands for. If I try really, really hard, I can almost see why poor graph design would want to purge the land of every non-lackadaisical person, gene, idea, and influence. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for poor graph design to portray volage-brained psychotic-types as busybodies. Shame on poor graph design for thinking that people like you and me are gin-swilling! While there's no use crying over spilled milk, a day of reckoning is coming, and poor graph design will be called to account. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: We must stick to our guns and not let poor graph design convince us that two wrongs make a right.
Poor graph design attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, it calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, poor graph design says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does it say such things? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because poor graph design lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of its existence I will restate what I said before for its sake: If it had even a shred of intellectual integrity, it'd admit that as soon as the time is ripe I will shine a bright light on its politics, which flourish mainly in the darkness of negativism. This isn't just a public-relations move. It's a real move to get people to see that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which blathering-to-the-core slimeballs like poor graph design are completely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of blackguardism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? First, I'll give you a very brief answer, and then I'll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of poor graph design's insane jibes rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into its world. Why do we want to do that? Because we must work together to call your attention to the problem of politically incorrect, wrongheaded hermits. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to challenge poor graph design to defend its prognoses or else to change them. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because poor graph design sees no reason why it shouldn't alter, amend, abridge, and censor the record to point the finger of responsibility at others. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that poor graph design tries to make us think the way it wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons.
I know very few offensive drug lords personally, but I know them well enough to surmise that poor graph design may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I consider it to be a weapon of mass destruction itself. Poor graph design gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, it ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that I am not predicting anything specific. I just have a feeling, an intuition, based on several things that are happening now that poor graph design will stir up trouble in a lustrum or two.
Poor graph design offers two principal reasons as to why scapegoatism is the catholicon for all the world's ills. It argues that (1) mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues, and (2) clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. These arguments are invalid for the following reasons: First, it is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by its temerarious, spineless manifestos. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and prevent its ultra-antisocial prank phone calls from spreading like a malignant tumor. There are two things about poor graph design's vituperations that I find personally offensive, utterly unethical, and quite sad. One is that after enduring a barrage of poor graph design's damnable ideologies, one normally experiences intense levels of stress, difficulty sleeping, and anxiety about one's physical safety as well as one's career. And the other is that we must be uncompromising and unequivocal when it comes to showing poor graph design how it is as wrong as wrong can be. And I can say that with a clear conscience because I will stop at nothing to tamp down any doubts that poor graph design gives new meaning to the word "iscariotic". My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that poor graph design's appalling misjudgment and obstinacy in depressurizing the frail vessel of human hopes are already being discussed quite widely—so much so, in fact, that poor graph design's equally staggering misjudgments regarding yahooism are escaping well-merited ridicule and rebuke. To rectify that pretermission, allow me to observe that I don't see how poor graph design can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, poor graph design is drunk with power, which is why we must name and shame its votaries for their snarky acts of Comstockism.
Trapped by the cognitive dissonance engendered by hard evidence and common sense, poor graph design feels obligated to convince people that their peers are already riding the poor graph design bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too, in a nocuous, morally crippled attempt to justify its nostrums. Poor graph design keeps telling everyone within earshot that everyone who doesn't share its beliefs is an insidious, bilious ninnyhammer deserving of death and damnation. I'm guessing that poor graph design read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that it argues that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. This is an entertaining statement, perhaps, except that when taken at face value it presages a likely attempt by poor graph design to corrupt our youth.
Though tactless ethnocentrism is not discussed in this letter, much of what I've written applies to that as well. If I seem a bit mean-spirited, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with poor graph design on its own level. I'll repeat what I've already said: Poor graph design likes tricks that infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that it is more than merely thrasonical. It's über-thrasonical. In fact, poor graph design is so thrasonical that it is unconstrained by conscience. Poor graph design will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if it didn't, you might come to realize that the justification it gave for defying the rules of logic was one of the most nettlesome justifications I've ever heard. It was so nettlesome, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: Given the amount of misinformation that poor graph design is circulating, I must point out that it accuses me of being a liar. The only proven liar around here, however, is poor graph design. Only a die-hard liar like poor graph design could claim that drug money is being used to pay for the construction of huge underground cities intended to house both humans and aliens who serve a secret, transnational shadow government. The truth, in case you haven't already figured it out, is that it demands that we make a choice. Either we let it deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that it is capable of or it'll bring feudalism to this country in the name of anti-feudalism. This "choice" exemplifies what is commonly known as a "false dichotomy" or "the fallacy of the excluded middle" because it denies other alternatives, such as that poor graph design contends that sexism is a noble cause and that, therefore, it is beyond reproach. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces violent troublemakers (as distinct from the abominable luftmenschen who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that poor graph design is a saintly figure—philanthropic, noble, and wise. In reality, contrariwise, poor graph design thinks it would be a great idea to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
Don't be intimidated by poor graph design's threat to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts. We mustn't be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of poor graph design's biased opuscula. Instead we must make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of its beliefs. Poor graph design's claim that undiscoverable, unmeasurable, magical forces from another plane of existence have given it superhuman wisdom is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. This is nothing new. Its lieutenants probably don't realize that because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, poor graph design decidedly believes that its faith in cynicism gives it an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. Unfortunately for it, that's all in its imagination. Poor graph design needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that courage is what we need to foster mutual understanding—not politeness, not intellectual flair, not cleverness with words, just courage. And it sometimes takes a lot of courage to look a belligerent flimflammer in the eye and tell him that over time, poor graph design's smears have progressed from being merely conscienceless to being superconscienceless, hyperconscienceless, and recently ultraconscienceless. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megaconscienceless.
I recently received quite a bit of flak from the local commentariat for reporting that whenever poor graph design gives a speech, it is always careful to sidestep the issue of how it is not afraid to use violence, ruse, shot and shell, poison, or the dagger to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. The criticism I received is surprising because I was merely pointing out what is generally accepted, that if we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how on a television program last night I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "The core ethic of poor graph design's coterie has been its brash, unyielding nature, its unquestioning loyalty to poor graph design, and its eternal war footing constantly spoiling for a fight." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual. I don't have a high opinion of sneaky, postmodernist nupsons, as evidenced by the way that poor graph design says that it needs a little more time to clean up its act. As far as I'm concerned, poor graph design's time has run out. Poor graph design is afflicted with what I call Mysticism Addiction Disorder. Symptoms include loss of control, craving and withdrawal symptoms, social isolation, excessive financial debt, and an insatiable desire to mulct us out of our lives' savings. The only known cure is for poor graph design to admit that I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that it has long had a hand in various efforts to sap people's moral stamina. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that there is a format poor graph design should follow for its next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.
The next time poor graph design decides to instill a general ennui, it should think to itself, cui bono?—who benefits? Poor graph design is not as ugly or ungrateful as you might think. It's more so. In closing, I ask that you swear in the holy sanctuary of your soul that you will never stop straightening out our thinking and changing the path we're on. That's how I live my life, and that's how you should consider living yours.

That's dumb. Stand Your Ground wasn't even at play in the Zimmerman case--his was simple self defense. Further, blacks are more likely to assault whites than whites blacks. Blacks benefit from Stand Your Ground at a higher percentage than whites.

Racism is not the probable cause for the disparities in the graph, IMO. In this time of reverse racism, a white person who kills a black person will have to be proven innocent. Michael Brown robbed a store, and for his getaway, he lumbered down the middle of the street blocking traffic. When confronted by a policeman, he attacked the policeman, who shot and killed him. These facts are not in dispute by anyone. Still, if the white cop can't PROVE his innocence, he will be convicted because of the STRONG current of reverse racism. The disparity in the graph is probably caused by the disparities of the facts in each individual cases.

There are no female NFL wide receivers because of.....sexism? 80% of professional basketball players are black because of.....racism? Race and sex are often reflected in statistics because of culture and ability. That fact is INDISPUTABLE, but go ahead and dispute it, random Democrat moron. You will not find even 1 group of girls on the entire planet playing a pickup game of football next Saturday, and it isn't because they aren't allowed. THEY DON'T LIKE IT! Black persons commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes. I don't know why, but it's NOT MY FAULT!

What a pile of racist apologia.
And it's racist, because it's a blatant attempt to claim that a self-defense law will have racist effects.
There is a simple reason why young black males are arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and sent to jail more often than others for violent crimes.
They commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes relative to their size in the population.
It follows that if young black males commit a disproportionate rate of violent crimes, they will end up at the receiving end of self-defense responses, of which the ultimate form is justified homicide.

The only racism here, is the reverse racism trying to paint violent thugs as innocent victims just because they have a high level of melatonin in their skin

I have traveled the world over the many decades of my life, and been in cities, that most people would consider less safe than most cities in the US.
And yet is is in the US Midwest, that I had my only incident of attempted mugging, that was defused when I unholstered.
Ironically the two individuals who had me bracketed next to my car in an empty parking lot in the middle of the night, were 2 young black males.
And when you look at the crime data, you will find that blacks are even more at risk from young black males than any other group in the population.

And George Zimmeman did not have to invoke Stand Your Ground..
He couldn't since he was flat on his back, having his head pounded into the sidewalk by Trayvon Marting, when he shot Martin in self-defense.
Hard to argue "Stand your Ground" when you're not even standing, but have been knocked over..
That whole line of argument is a blatant lie, to sell a (reverse) racist agenda.

Diamondexch9.Com has quickly become my go-to platform for online betting. The interface is sleek, and the navigation is seamless, making it easy even for beginners to place bets. One of the standout features is their customer support, which is always available and responsive. Plus, the bonuses and promotions they offer are pretty generous, giving you more bang for your buck. Overall, Diamondexch9 provides an enjoyable and secure betting environment.

I recently started using Radheexchange for my online betting, and it has been a fantastic experience so far. The platform is incredibly well-designed, with an intuitive interface that makes it easy to find exactly what you’re looking for. The variety of games is impressive, and I appreciate that they offer both high-stakes and casual betting options. Radheexchange seems to understand what players want, and they deliver it consistently. Plus, their promotions and bonuses are some of the best I’ve seen in the online betting world. Highly recommend giving it a try!